James L. Saylor, Jr., Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] James L. Saylor, Jr., appeals his conviction for murder and claims the trial court abused its discretion in admitting certain testimony and that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In July 2020, Kylie Haithcox, who had been dating Saylor and later married him in 2022, purchased a Springfield Hellcat firearm, which had a serial number of BY173731.

[3] On October 13, 2020, Fort Wayne Police Sergeant J.C. Gutierrez encountered Saylor, Haithcox, and Saylor's mother and found Saylor and Haithcox in possession of a Buick with license plate BBD334.

[4] On February 27, 2021, Fort Wayne Police Detective Geoff Norton observed Saylor driving a Buick with license plate of BBD334, which was registered to Haithcox. Detective Norton discovered the Springfield Hellcat firearm with the serial number of BY173731 registered to Haithcox in the vehicle. Detective Norton collected the firearm, and Crime Scene Tech Kristine Armstead conducted test fires “to collect the shell casings for comparison through other investigations.” Transcript Volume III at 182. After the test fires, Haithcox retrieved the firearm.

[5] In October 2023, Saylor's sister, Vanessa, who was married to Sean Brabson, was murdered, and Saylor learned of her death on October 20, 2023. On October 21, 2023, Saylor and Haithcox spent most of the day with Michael Tyrone Allen, Jr., who was the father of three of Vanessa's children.

[6] In the early morning hours of October 22, 2023, communications occurred between a cell phone with a number ending in 1662, which was a number for a phone owned by Haithcox and used by Saylor, and a phone owned by Allen. One of the messages contained an attachment that stated, “I know where your sister husband at right now.” Transcript Volume IV at 132.

[7] That same morning, Brabson and Valerie Cruz were “hanging out.” Transcript Volume II at 201. Cruz and Brabson went to a store called 4 Cloud 20. While Brabson was carrying Cruz's television, he and Cruz crossed the street to enter an alley, and he pointed out a car with its headlights on. Brabson set the television down and was going to tell Cruz something when “somebody started shooting.” Id. at 202. Cruz observed “somebody in all black with a gun just shooting.” Id. at 203. Cruz and Brabson began running and separated. Cruz ran to a gas station, yelled, and eventually returned to find Brabson on the ground. Brabson lifted his shirt and said, “they got me.” Id. at 204. Brabson died as a result of multiple gunshot wounds.

[8] Luis Renderos, who was in the area of the 5500 block of South Calhoun Street, heard multiple gunshots. After a brief period of silence and hearing a male asking for help, Renderos called 911. Renderos saw a car of a “greyish or silver color” “driving pretty fast ․ out of the area.” Id. at 191-192.

[9] At approximately 6:40 to 6:42 a.m., law enforcement officers were dispatched to the scene in reference to a shooting. Fort Wayne Police Officers Robert Reece and Gerard arrived at the scene at approximately 6:49 a.m. after other officers, an ambulance, and fire crews had already arrived. A few minutes after arriving on the scene, Officer Reece contacted a male who said he was walking to the gas station and heard a commotion, a female screaming near the gas station, and gunshots. The male also said that he saw a vehicle pull up and someone exit the car, which struck him as suspicious given the time.

[10] About twenty minutes after he arrived at the scene, Officer Reece located a silver Buick Regal approximately “a block, block and a half, north of the crime scene,” which turned north and stopped in the middle of the road twenty-five yards after making the turn. Transcript Volume III at 40. The car caught Officer Reece's attention because “this person looked like they were either lost, or looking for somebody.” Id. at 40-41.

[11] Officer Reece followed the vehicle, which sped up, turned west, and pulled into a driveway shortly after turning. Officer Reece passed the driveway, and the driver of the Buick Regal, later identified as Allen, backed out of the driveway and “t[ook] off” in “the opposite direction where it just came from.” Id. at 42. Officer Reece pulled into a driveway, turned around, and followed the vehicle. Allen “took off at a high rate of speed” and “well above the posted speed limit.” Id. Officer Reece initiated a traffic stop, and Allen pulled into a gas station.

[12] Allen quickly exited his vehicle and began “hollering some statements” that he “didn't do nothing.” Id. at 43. He also did not listen to commands to return to the vehicle. Officer Reece grabbed Allen's hands and began to conduct a patdown. Allen denied being involved in the homicide and stated that his “baby momma was ․ killed the day prior.” Id. at 49. Officer Reece did not locate any weapons on Allen's person or in his vehicle and released him.

[13] Officer Reece reviewed surveillance video obtained from 4 Cloud 20 and observed a black male wearing all black exit the driver's seat of a Buick Regal. He also observed a black male exit the passenger side of the Buick Regal and enter the driver's seat. Fort Wayne Police Detective Geraud Bartels reviewed the surveillance video from 4 Cloud 20 and determined that it showed what appeared to be the same vehicle that was seen in the body camera from Officer Reece and Officer Gerard and that the jacket of the passenger who exited the vehicle in the surveillance video had the “exact same ice blue colored coat” as Allen wore in the body camera video. Id. at 85. Law enforcement also obtained surveillance video from a gas station that showed “the silver ․ Buick ․ cutting through the lot ․ coming northbound, cut through the lot, and then turn westbound on Pettit.” Id. at 240.

[14] Meanwhile, on the morning of October 22, 2023, Haithcox drove Saylor and his mother to the home of Saylor's mother. She drove her silver Buick Regal and noticed that the driver's seat “was back” and she “had to pull it forward.” Id. at 160. Later that day, Fort Wayne Police Detective Jeff Marsee discovered the Buick Regal parked “almost straight across from the doors going out” from Haithcox's apartment. Id. at 247. Detective Marsee did not observe any signs of anyone having broken into the vehicle, and Haithcox unlocked the vehicle with her key fob, which she hung on the key rack in her house.

[15] At the scene, law enforcement discovered eight nine-millimeter shell casings and bullets. Hannah Dygert, a forensic scientist in the Firearms Identification Unit at the Fort Wayne Regional Laboratory, compared the eight shell casings with the test fires produced in 2021 from the Springfield Hellcat firearm with a serial number of BY173731, and concluded that the eight shell casings were fired from that particular firearm.

[16] On October 26, 2023, the State charged Saylor with murder and filed a firearm enhancement. The State presented the testimony of multiple witnesses including Renderos, Cruz, Officer Reece, Detective Bartels, Haithcox, Sergeant Gutierrez, Detective Norton, Detective Marsee, Fort Wayne Police Detective Benjamin MacDonald, and Dygert.

[17] During direct examination, the prosecutor asked Detective Marsee if Allen provided him with “any statement of identification as to the other individual with him,” and Saylor's counsel objected on the basis of hearsay. Transcript Volume III at 250. The prosecutor asserted that “under 801(d)(c) [sic] this is not hearsay as it is a statement of identification of a person shortly after receiving [sic] the person.” Transcript Volume III at 250 - Transcript Volume IV at 2. The court overruled the objection. Saylor's counsel moved for a mistrial, and the court denied the motion. When asked if he obtained any “statement of identification from Mr. Allen about the person that he had – was with,” Detective Marsee answered affirmatively. Transcript Volume IV at 3. When asked “what was that,” he answered, “James Saylor.” Id. at 4.

[18] Detective MacDonald testified that he conducted a historical cell site analysis for the phone number associated with Saylor. When asked how many calls occurred “in that timeframe from 6:36 a.m. to 6:46 a.m.,” he answered, “[W]ell there's twelve (12), so that's twenty-six (26), twenty-eight (28), twenty-nine (29).” Id. at 74-75. He also testified:

[I]f you look at the morning of the shooting, you have transactions starting at 4:34, 5:24, and then – then it becomes 6:05, 6:10, 6:19, 6:20, 6:21, and then nothing until 6:51; two (2) out – both outgoing calls from the device from James Saylor – associated with James Saylor, to the device associated with Michael Allen. So, there's a thirty (30) second [sic] gap from 6:21, which we saw was in the area of McCormick Apartments, and then 6:51, which would've been post homicide.

Id. at 91. The prosecutor mentioned the “time gap between 6:21 and 6:51 for ․ the phone affiliated with” Saylor and the phone affiliated with Allen and asked if, “sometimes when people are together, do you see a communication between phones stop?” Id. at 92. Detective MacDonald answered, “[G]enerally when people are together they don't use their phones to ․ communicate.” Id. On redirect examination, he testified that “at 6:36 until 6:46, the phone hit ․ it used a tower and sector that would be consistent with being in the area of the crime scene.” Id. at 102.

[19] After the State rested, Saylor's counsel moved for a directed verdict, and the court denied the motion. The jury found Saylor guilty of murder and found that he used a firearm. The court sentenced Saylor to sixty-two years for murder and enhanced the sentence by eighteen years based on his use of a firearm for an aggregate sentence of eighty years.

Discussion

I.

[20] Saylor argues the trial court abused its discretion in allowing Detective Marsee to testify that Allen told him that he was with Saylor in the early morning hours of October 22, 2023. He asserts that the out-of-court statement does not fall under the plain language of Ind. Evidence Rule 801(d)(1)(C) and the testimony was impermissible hearsay because Allen did not testify at trial and was not subject to cross-examination.¹ He asserts that the admission was not harmless error because the “improper testimony was the singularly crucial piece of evidence linking [him] to the murder.” Appellant's Brief at 13. The State agrees that Detective Marsee's testimony does not fall within Rule 801(d)(1)(C) but asserts that, “even if the trial court's admission of Detective Marsee's testimony was error, Saylor is not entitled to relief because the error was harmless” as a non-constitutional error under Ind. Appellate Rule 66(A).² Appellee's Brief at 18.

[21] “A trial court's error in excluding evidence does not require reversal if the error was harmless.” Hayko v. State, 211 N.E.3d 483, 491 (Ind. 2023), reh'g denied, cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 570 (2024). “For non-constitutional errors ․ , our harmless-error analysis is found in Appellate Rule 66(A).” Id. Ind. Appellate Rule 66(A) provides:

No error or defect in any ruling or order or in anything done or omitted by the trial court or by any of the parties is ground for granting relief or reversal on appeal where its probable impact, in light of all the evidence in the case, is sufficiently minor so as not to affect the substantial rights of the parties.

[22] “When an appellate court must determine whether a non-constitutional error is harmless, Rule 66(A)’s ‘probable impact test’ controls.” Id. at 492. “Under this test, the party seeking relief bears the burden of demonstrating how, in light of all the evidence in the case, the error's probable impact undermines confidence in the outcome of the proceeding below.” Id. (citing Mason v. State, 689 N.E.2d 1233, 1236-1237 (Ind. 1997); Edward W. Najam, Jr. & Jonathan B. Warner, Indiana's Probable-Impact Test for Reversible Error, 55 IND. L. REV. 27, 50-51 (2022)). “Importantly, this is not a review for the sufficiency of the remaining evidence; it is a review of what was presented to the trier of fact compared to what should have been presented.” Id. “And when conducting that review, we consider the likely impact of the improperly admitted or excluded evidence on a reasonable, average jury in light of all the evidence in the case.” Id. (citing Tunstall v. Manning, 124 N.E.3d 1193, 1200 (Ind. 2019)). “Ultimately, the error's probable impact is sufficiently minor when—considering the entire record—our confidence in the outcome is not undermined.” Id.

[23] The State presented evidence that Haithcox allowed Saylor to drive her silver Buick Regal, which appeared on surveillance video near the scene of the crime that morning. About twenty minutes after he arrived at the scene, Officer Reece located the silver Buick Regal approximately “a block, block and a half, north of the crime scene,” driven by Allen, and a search of Allen and the vehicle revealed no firearms. Transcript Volume III at 40. Surveillance video showed a black male wearing all black clothing exit the driver's seat and run in the direction of Brabson and Cruz, while Allen exited the passenger side of the vehicle, entered the driver's seat, and drove away. Cruz observed “somebody in all black with a gun just shooting.” Transcript Volume II at 203. Shell casings recovered at the scene were fired from the firearm owned by Saylor's wife.

[24] Later in the morning after the shooting, Haithcox drove the silver Buick Regal and noticed that the driver's seat “was back” and she “had to pull it forward.” Transcript Volume III at 160. Detective Marsee discovered the Buick Regal parked “almost straight across from the doors going out” from Haithcox's apartment. Id. at 247. Detective Marsee did not observe any signs of anyone having broken into the vehicle, and Haithcox unlocked the vehicle with her key fob. Haithcox testified that she never gave Allen permission to drive her vehicle and that she did not see any evidence that anyone had broken into her apartment or her vehicle on October 22, 2023.

[25] The State also presented evidence regarding the communications between the phone used by Saylor and Allen's phone, which indicated multiple communications that morning as well as a thirty-minute gap around the time of the murder. Saylor's sister was murdered days before the shooting of her husband, Brabson. Detective Marsee testified that an attachment with the message stating “I know where your sister husband at right now” was sent between the phone numbers associated with Allen and Saylor. Transcript Volume IV at 132. Detective MacDonald testified that, with respect to the phone associated with Saylor, “at 6:36 until 6:46, the phone hit ․ it used a tower and sector that would be consistent with being in the area of the crime scene.” Id. at 102.

[26] We conclude that when considering the entire record in this case, our confidence in the jury's verdict is not undermined. We find that any error in the trial court's admission of Detective Marsee's testimony was harmless.

II.

[27] Saylor argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's verdict because there was no evidence presented that could have sufficiently proven that he was the individual who shot and killed Brabson. When reviewing claims of insufficiency of the evidence, we do not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses. Jordan v. State, 656 N.E.2d 816, 817 (Ind.1995), reh'g denied. Rather, we look to the evidence and the reasonable inferences therefrom that support the verdict. Id. We will affirm the conviction if there exists evidence of probative value from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

[28] Elements of offenses and identity may be established entirely by circumstantial evidence and the logical inferences drawn therefrom. Bustamante v. State, 557 N.E.2d 1313, 1317 (Ind. 1990). Identification testimony need not necessarily be unequivocal to sustain a conviction. Heeter v. State, 661 N.E.2d 612, 616 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996). Inconsistencies in identification testimony impact only the weight of that testimony, because it is the jury's task to weigh the evidence and determine the credibility of the witnesses. Gleaves v. State, 859 N.E.2d 766, 770 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (citing Badelle v. State, 754 N.E.2d 510 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001), trans. denied). As with other sufficiency matters, we will not weigh the evidence or resolve questions of credibility when determining whether the identification evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction. Heeter, 661 N.E.2d at 616. Rather, we examine the evidence and the reasonable inferences therefrom that support the verdict. Id.

[29] In light of the evidence that Haithcox allowed Saylor to drive her silver Buick Regal, Saylor's access to the vehicle's keys, the surveillance video showing Allen and a black male dressed in black clothing, the communications between Saylor and Allen, as well as the conclusion that the shell casings found at the scene matched the firearm that was registered to Saylor's wife, we conclude that the State presented evidence of probative value from which a reasonable jury could find Saylor guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

[30] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Saylor's conviction.

[31] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Evidence Rule 801(d)(1)(C) provides: “Notwithstanding Rule 801(c), a statement is not hearsay if ․ [t]he declarant testifies and is subject to cross-examination about a prior statement, and the statement ․ is an identification of a person shortly after perceiving the person.”

2.   In his brief, Saylor does not argue that the error constituted a constitutional error. Saylor also did not file a reply brief.

Brown, Judge.

Judges Bailey and Weissmann concur. Bailey, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.